Rudolph Hucker
Senior Member
- Jun 26, 2007
- 1,540
- 332
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Upvote
0
I was kicked out of an Apostolic church once...
- Thread starter Ladybug4Jesus
- Start date
- Status
- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,821
- 10,796
- 76
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
It sounds like that church was ruled by a religious spirit and not the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit governs a church, there is the love of Christ which enables members to look upon one another in terms of their hearts before God. Churches ruled by a religious spirit are legalistic and do not have much perception of the God's love. The Scripture says that those who do not love do not know God because God is love. That just about sums that church up.
God does not care about your hair style or whether you wear pants or not. He looks on your heart. Do you love Him? And do you love your brothers and sisters in Christ? Those are the things that are important to Him.
Frankly God is bored and weary with religious, legalistic "synagogues" that have a form of godliness but no love. He says, from such TURN AWAY!
Upvote
0
JJM
Senior Veteran
- Apr 4, 2004
- 1,940
- 54
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I know this post is way old and I suspect this thread is dead but I needed to respond. It might be a little petty but BlackSabb made some accusaions about my general education and integrity. Sorry for anyone cringing at the idea of it coming up again. If BlackSabb did start another thread about it somewhere perhaps he could point me there.
That means 'Caesar leads the Gauls into the victory parade, that same one [leads them] into the senate: the Gauls took off thier pants, and took up the broad stripe' ie the clothing of a senator. My translation.
While 'pants' may have only be from 1840 'pantaloons' which are a type of pants and the word from which pants comes is from the 1660s and likewise trousers comes from 'trouse' which is as late as the 1570s. 'Breeches' etymonline has at c.1200. All of this is really just to stress the point that you don't have words for things that do not exist.
In fact pants were and have been common dress amongst Celtic, German and Slavic peoples for millennia. And seeing as America was an English colony and England is populated almost entirely by Germans and Celts, I think that my point is clear enough.
In fact even though the Roman's looked down on pants, they were in fact common enough within the empire that Honorius banned them within Rome.
In the middle ages though tunics were common some form of pants were usually worn under them by men. And the tunics worn by men were largely different than those worn by women. I point you to this website Medieval Clothing Quoting from the section on peasants 'The dress of the men in the lowest ranks of society was always short and tight, consisting of breeches, or tight drawers, mostly made of leather, of tight tunics or doublets, and of capes or cloaks of coarse brown woollen.”
Even in ancient Rome when Robes/tunics of various sorts were especially common and not with pants, differences in dress between the sexes were significant. See Article - Roman clothing
and Roman Dress
If a woman past the age of marriage was seen wearing a toga, she would have been understood to be a prostitute.
Pants for Women Summary | BookRags.com
You might also want to read this Amelia Jenks Bloomer Biography | BookRags.com
If anyone's really interested I suggest they buy Volume 39, No. 2, Spring 2011 of Media Report to Women. I have not read it but it has an article entitled “Who’s Wearing the Pants? How the New York Times Reported the Changing Dress of Women” by Kimberly Wilmot Voss which I highly suspect will give a more in depth explanation of what I was saying. A quote from the author “The wearing of pants was a controversial topic, symbolizing the concern over the changing role of gender roles in society.”
To your first point. I don't think one is going to be able to go back to women never wearing pants on any occasion. The problem is (and this is what Deut. 22:5 is getting at) that our society has a tendency to ignore the gender-types that people fall into and focus on the individual as an entity which is bound by only an individual telos without regard to the type into which he/she falls. With regard to gender this is extremely unbiblical and the fact of the matter is that one way to reinforce this teleological type distinction is by gender specific clothing. And I think that since (as I showed above) the emergence of pants into woman's fashion, or at least the retaining of them after the World Wars, was an intentional statement designed to remove gender roles then people who recognize that God's plan involves a strong distinction in gender roles could easily make this statement on an everyday level by doing the opposite and intentionally not wearing pants. Before someone says that that is stupid and would not ever work, I ask you to simply think about what you would think about a woman whom you know who is always in a skirt or dress or is in one 9 times out of 10.
If this were true classical latin would not have a word for pants. But it does 'bracae'. I quote Suetonius: 'Gallos Caesar in triumphum ducit, idem in curiam: Galli bracas deposuerunt, latum clauum sumpserunt.'
That means 'Caesar leads the Gauls into the victory parade, that same one [leads them] into the senate: the Gauls took off thier pants, and took up the broad stripe' ie the clothing of a senator. My translation.
While 'pants' may have only be from 1840 'pantaloons' which are a type of pants and the word from which pants comes is from the 1660s and likewise trousers comes from 'trouse' which is as late as the 1570s. 'Breeches' etymonline has at c.1200. All of this is really just to stress the point that you don't have words for things that do not exist.
In fact pants were and have been common dress amongst Celtic, German and Slavic peoples for millennia. And seeing as America was an English colony and England is populated almost entirely by Germans and Celts, I think that my point is clear enough.
In fact even though the Roman's looked down on pants, they were in fact common enough within the empire that Honorius banned them within Rome.
In the middle ages though tunics were common some form of pants were usually worn under them by men. And the tunics worn by men were largely different than those worn by women. I point you to this website Medieval Clothing Quoting from the section on peasants 'The dress of the men in the lowest ranks of society was always short and tight, consisting of breeches, or tight drawers, mostly made of leather, of tight tunics or doublets, and of capes or cloaks of coarse brown woollen.”
Even in ancient Rome when Robes/tunics of various sorts were especially common and not with pants, differences in dress between the sexes were significant. See Article - Roman clothing
and Roman Dress
If a woman past the age of marriage was seen wearing a toga, she would have been understood to be a prostitute.
“Pants for women emerged from the burgeoning nineteenth century feminist movement, which demanded a change from Victorian dresses to a more practical costume that would permit women to engage in activities beyond those traditionally assigned to the female domestic sphere.”
Pants for Women Summary | BookRags.com
You might also want to read this Amelia Jenks Bloomer Biography | BookRags.com
If anyone's really interested I suggest they buy Volume 39, No. 2, Spring 2011 of Media Report to Women. I have not read it but it has an article entitled “Who’s Wearing the Pants? How the New York Times Reported the Changing Dress of Women” by Kimberly Wilmot Voss which I highly suspect will give a more in depth explanation of what I was saying. A quote from the author “The wearing of pants was a controversial topic, symbolizing the concern over the changing role of gender roles in society.”
I'll point you here http://www.biblesociety.com.au/pdf/Enc sample.pdf but that is more likely to be NT era I think. I'm not an expert in ancient Hebrew dress, but it had to be different enough that God could forbid cross dressing Deut. 22:5. Whether or not one still thinks that law should apply is another question, but from a historical point of view there clearly was a difference in clothing even if it is not as easily perceptible to us.
To your first point. I don't think one is going to be able to go back to women never wearing pants on any occasion. The problem is (and this is what Deut. 22:5 is getting at) that our society has a tendency to ignore the gender-types that people fall into and focus on the individual as an entity which is bound by only an individual telos without regard to the type into which he/she falls. With regard to gender this is extremely unbiblical and the fact of the matter is that one way to reinforce this teleological type distinction is by gender specific clothing. And I think that since (as I showed above) the emergence of pants into woman's fashion, or at least the retaining of them after the World Wars, was an intentional statement designed to remove gender roles then people who recognize that God's plan involves a strong distinction in gender roles could easily make this statement on an everyday level by doing the opposite and intentionally not wearing pants. Before someone says that that is stupid and would not ever work, I ask you to simply think about what you would think about a woman whom you know who is always in a skirt or dress or is in one 9 times out of 10.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
OK.. I wrote a book entitled, "Should a Christian Woman Wear Pants?" I would like to make a few comments.
Pants were the invention of the Medes & Persians in the 4th cen. B.C. and were worn by BOTH sexes. They were not invented for men; neither were men the first to wear pants. They were invented for warmth and for riding horses. The Persians valued fine horses, and in that capacity pants spread to other nations. Princesses in the royal court of King Darius III wore pants and rode horses.
"Braccae" is the Latin word for and the ancestor of the English word, "breeches." In the NT era they were worn by the "barbarians of the north". The word, "pants," comes from "pantaloons." "Braccae", "pantaloons," "trousers," were all the same garment, and were worn by the Medes and Persians; the Scythians; the Parthians; the Phrygians; the Sacae; the Sarmatae; the Dacians and Getae; the Teutones; the Belgae; the Britons; the Gauls; and the Celts.
In ancient monuments we find these people constantly exhibited in trousers, thus clearly distinguishing them from Greeks and Romans. The figures depicted on ancient Roman armored breatplates often include barbarian warriors in shirts and trousers. The column of Trajan illustrates in relief the Sarmatians in their pants and shirts.
During the Roman Republic pants were scorned by Romans. But, during the Empire, Roman soldiers made their way to Britain and soon the auxiliary soldiers, esp horsemen, adopted the short, tight pants of the barbarians. Emperor Augustus Caesar wore them through the winter to protect his sometimes fragile heath. Emperor Nero also wore tight pants under his tunic.
Although there are many instances in history that would have brought Hebrews into contact with pants, we find no indication of their ever adopting them. Paul did missionary work in some of the countries where people wore pants, but we do not find him denouncing the "chiton" for the "garb of the barbarians." He did not regard pants as masculine attire. Paul was at home in the Greco-Roman culture. Being a citizen of Rome and Greek speaking Tarsus, he probably held the same aversion toward pants the rest of the Empire held. (In Col. 3:11 he mentions the Scythian along with the "barbarian.")
Actually, there was very little distinction between men's and women's garments among the Hebrews. 12 times the word "skirt" appears it is referring to the skirt of a man. 7 times the word "skirts" (plural) appears it refers to BOTH sexes. In Genesis 3:7 we find God made "coats" of skin for BOTH Adam and Eve. "Coats" is translated from the Hebrew word, "kethoneth," and throughout the entire Bible this word refers to the basic garment of the Jew. In the NT it is "chiton" in the Greek and corresponded to the Roman "tunica." It resembled a "shift" styled dress in our historical and CULTURE.
The well known piece of Assyrian sculpture, representing the seige and capture of Lachish, a city in Judah, by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and female, dressed in the kethoneth. The Lachish tunics were a moderately tight fitting garment, fitting close to to the neck and reaching almost to the ankles with short sleeves, reaching half-way to the elbows.
The dress of women was distinguished, not so much by kind, as by detail and quality of materials. They wore longer tunics and larger mantles than the men, and the outer garment included fringe around the bottom. The distinctions between men's and women's garments were in color, size, trim, etc.--not in the actual FORM or SHAPE of the clothing.
Deuteronomy 22:5 does not refer to cross-dressing in a CULTURAL sense, but to CULTIC transvestitism--cross-dressing to worship heathen gods! The word, "abomination," is commonly linked with the worship of heathen gods (Deut. 12:31; 13:14; 18:12; 27:15; etc.). The Hebrew word is to'ebah and defined in Strong's as "something disgusting, esp IDOLATRY."
The word "man" in Deut. is usually translated from the Hebrew 'yish, meaning man, a male, and a few times from adam meaning "mankind." But in v5 the word is geber, meaning "man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight). Strong's #1397. The word, "pertaineth" is from the Hebrew keliy, which translators commonly render as "weapon, armor, or instrument" in the OT. Considering this, Deut. 22:5 would mean:
"The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment:..."
The surrounding Canaanites practiced TRANSVESTITE WARRIOR DRESSING rituals during which women would put on battle array and men would wear women's clothes in order to summons their pagan god of war.
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes:
"Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob quoted in the Talmud says, "What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?" He then cites Deut. 22:5, which he reads this way: "A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman". He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a "warrior's gear."
The exact date at which pants took on male association is 1340 and only in European cultures. Prior to this date both sexes wore "dresses." During the Dark and Middle Ages the Catholic Church was the major influence on society, culture, and politics. The "braccae", which were worn by both sexes before the fall of Rome, crept into use, worn by women under a long tunic or blouse. Clothing historian Lois Banner, in The Fashionable Sex, 1100-1600, gives 3 reasons for this separation of women's and men's clothing. (1) The exposure of male legs reflected the seeming triumph of heterosexuality. Homoosexuality had been deeply entrenched in the Greek world, but by the 14th cen. homosexuals had become a persecuted minority. (2) The new exposure of male legs indicated a new resolve to dominate over women to reassert control. This is in line with what many historians of women have identified as a worseing of women's position from the late medieval period onward. (3) Pants had become a power struggle between men and women. Pants allow freedom of movement and came to represent men's rights to rule and dominate women to a severe extent. Now, it was evident by clothing, who "wore the pants."
During this era women were tortured with the "branks," the "pillory", the "ducking stool", etc. The Catholic Church cruelly punished many women as "witches" with scalding liquids or objects, even fire brands, down their throats. More than one million women were burned at the stake by the Catholic Church during the "witch hunts" and often after suffering other public atrocities like having their breasts hacked off.
The separation of pants on men and dresses on women does not exist in the Bible. God had absolutely nothing to do with it. It had nothing to do with Deut. 22:5, but every bit to do with the influence of the Catholic Church over Europe during the Middle Ages and the harsh, cruel, brutalization of women. The CHURCH issued denunciations against women wearing pants, and by the end of the 17th cen a person could be hanged for wearing clothes of the opposite sex, as defined by the Catholic Church. This particular separation and distinction represents the view of marriage held by the CHURCH--that of a heirarchy, or "master and slave."
Views regarding the inferiority of women were brought over here to our country by our country's European forefathers. It was during the "abolitionist movement" that women became empowered to throw off the symbolism of male power and authority invoked upon pants. Our country could not abolish slavery without improving the position of women. The same legalities that permitted men to buy, own, and sell Negro slaves, made his wife his chattel [tangible property] as well. Women in this country suffered from harsh inequalities of the law. We were not even allowed to own property!
The National Dress Reform Society and the women's movement introduced women's pants into our country's CULTURE in 1851. Our country's first "feminists" were intellectual women who did their homework. They knew the historical origin of pants and tried to educated the public in articles in newspapers and magazines. They were aware of different CULTURES in other countries where pants had no male association. Women did NOT copy men's wear, but they took their inspiration from the "harems" of eastern countries. Elizabeth Smith Miller created an outfit that consisted of a short skirt with TURKISH pantaloons underneath. Her outfit was promoted in Amelia Bloomer's magazine, The Lily. Women all over the country began wearing the costume. In 1903 Alice Morse Earle wrote:
"With the constant...newspaper jesting which we daily hear and read, that women are striving to capture that article of dress, now held to be so distinctly masculine, it is somewhat amusing to be told by careful students that trousers were first assumed for general wear, not by men, but by women. ...In fact, trousers had been worn by both men and women of ancient MEDIA around the 4th century B.C." (Published in the Arena, Aug. 1894)
Henry Finck, wrote in The Independent, in 1907:
"Today the Eskimo women are by no means the only ones who wear the bifurcated garment. Feminine trousers survive in many conservative Oriental countries--in Persia, Turkey, China, India, Algiers, Tunis..."
What is considered masculine and feminine in clothing styles is not dictated in the Bible by God but is a matter of CULTURE, which varies with historical era and nationality. If men could wear men's skirts in Biblical times women can wear women's pants in our day and culture.
Pants were the invention of the Medes & Persians in the 4th cen. B.C. and were worn by BOTH sexes. They were not invented for men; neither were men the first to wear pants. They were invented for warmth and for riding horses. The Persians valued fine horses, and in that capacity pants spread to other nations. Princesses in the royal court of King Darius III wore pants and rode horses.
"Braccae" is the Latin word for and the ancestor of the English word, "breeches." In the NT era they were worn by the "barbarians of the north". The word, "pants," comes from "pantaloons." "Braccae", "pantaloons," "trousers," were all the same garment, and were worn by the Medes and Persians; the Scythians; the Parthians; the Phrygians; the Sacae; the Sarmatae; the Dacians and Getae; the Teutones; the Belgae; the Britons; the Gauls; and the Celts.
In ancient monuments we find these people constantly exhibited in trousers, thus clearly distinguishing them from Greeks and Romans. The figures depicted on ancient Roman armored breatplates often include barbarian warriors in shirts and trousers. The column of Trajan illustrates in relief the Sarmatians in their pants and shirts.
During the Roman Republic pants were scorned by Romans. But, during the Empire, Roman soldiers made their way to Britain and soon the auxiliary soldiers, esp horsemen, adopted the short, tight pants of the barbarians. Emperor Augustus Caesar wore them through the winter to protect his sometimes fragile heath. Emperor Nero also wore tight pants under his tunic.
Although there are many instances in history that would have brought Hebrews into contact with pants, we find no indication of their ever adopting them. Paul did missionary work in some of the countries where people wore pants, but we do not find him denouncing the "chiton" for the "garb of the barbarians." He did not regard pants as masculine attire. Paul was at home in the Greco-Roman culture. Being a citizen of Rome and Greek speaking Tarsus, he probably held the same aversion toward pants the rest of the Empire held. (In Col. 3:11 he mentions the Scythian along with the "barbarian.")
Actually, there was very little distinction between men's and women's garments among the Hebrews. 12 times the word "skirt" appears it is referring to the skirt of a man. 7 times the word "skirts" (plural) appears it refers to BOTH sexes. In Genesis 3:7 we find God made "coats" of skin for BOTH Adam and Eve. "Coats" is translated from the Hebrew word, "kethoneth," and throughout the entire Bible this word refers to the basic garment of the Jew. In the NT it is "chiton" in the Greek and corresponded to the Roman "tunica." It resembled a "shift" styled dress in our historical and CULTURE.
The well known piece of Assyrian sculpture, representing the seige and capture of Lachish, a city in Judah, by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and female, dressed in the kethoneth. The Lachish tunics were a moderately tight fitting garment, fitting close to to the neck and reaching almost to the ankles with short sleeves, reaching half-way to the elbows.
The dress of women was distinguished, not so much by kind, as by detail and quality of materials. They wore longer tunics and larger mantles than the men, and the outer garment included fringe around the bottom. The distinctions between men's and women's garments were in color, size, trim, etc.--not in the actual FORM or SHAPE of the clothing.
Deuteronomy 22:5 does not refer to cross-dressing in a CULTURAL sense, but to CULTIC transvestitism--cross-dressing to worship heathen gods! The word, "abomination," is commonly linked with the worship of heathen gods (Deut. 12:31; 13:14; 18:12; 27:15; etc.). The Hebrew word is to'ebah and defined in Strong's as "something disgusting, esp IDOLATRY."
The word "man" in Deut. is usually translated from the Hebrew 'yish, meaning man, a male, and a few times from adam meaning "mankind." But in v5 the word is geber, meaning "man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight). Strong's #1397. The word, "pertaineth" is from the Hebrew keliy, which translators commonly render as "weapon, armor, or instrument" in the OT. Considering this, Deut. 22:5 would mean:
"The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment:..."
The surrounding Canaanites practiced TRANSVESTITE WARRIOR DRESSING rituals during which women would put on battle array and men would wear women's clothes in order to summons their pagan god of war.
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes:
"Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob quoted in the Talmud says, "What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?" He then cites Deut. 22:5, which he reads this way: "A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman". He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a "warrior's gear."
The exact date at which pants took on male association is 1340 and only in European cultures. Prior to this date both sexes wore "dresses." During the Dark and Middle Ages the Catholic Church was the major influence on society, culture, and politics. The "braccae", which were worn by both sexes before the fall of Rome, crept into use, worn by women under a long tunic or blouse. Clothing historian Lois Banner, in The Fashionable Sex, 1100-1600, gives 3 reasons for this separation of women's and men's clothing. (1) The exposure of male legs reflected the seeming triumph of heterosexuality. Homoosexuality had been deeply entrenched in the Greek world, but by the 14th cen. homosexuals had become a persecuted minority. (2) The new exposure of male legs indicated a new resolve to dominate over women to reassert control. This is in line with what many historians of women have identified as a worseing of women's position from the late medieval period onward. (3) Pants had become a power struggle between men and women. Pants allow freedom of movement and came to represent men's rights to rule and dominate women to a severe extent. Now, it was evident by clothing, who "wore the pants."
During this era women were tortured with the "branks," the "pillory", the "ducking stool", etc. The Catholic Church cruelly punished many women as "witches" with scalding liquids or objects, even fire brands, down their throats. More than one million women were burned at the stake by the Catholic Church during the "witch hunts" and often after suffering other public atrocities like having their breasts hacked off.
The separation of pants on men and dresses on women does not exist in the Bible. God had absolutely nothing to do with it. It had nothing to do with Deut. 22:5, but every bit to do with the influence of the Catholic Church over Europe during the Middle Ages and the harsh, cruel, brutalization of women. The CHURCH issued denunciations against women wearing pants, and by the end of the 17th cen a person could be hanged for wearing clothes of the opposite sex, as defined by the Catholic Church. This particular separation and distinction represents the view of marriage held by the CHURCH--that of a heirarchy, or "master and slave."
Views regarding the inferiority of women were brought over here to our country by our country's European forefathers. It was during the "abolitionist movement" that women became empowered to throw off the symbolism of male power and authority invoked upon pants. Our country could not abolish slavery without improving the position of women. The same legalities that permitted men to buy, own, and sell Negro slaves, made his wife his chattel [tangible property] as well. Women in this country suffered from harsh inequalities of the law. We were not even allowed to own property!
The National Dress Reform Society and the women's movement introduced women's pants into our country's CULTURE in 1851. Our country's first "feminists" were intellectual women who did their homework. They knew the historical origin of pants and tried to educated the public in articles in newspapers and magazines. They were aware of different CULTURES in other countries where pants had no male association. Women did NOT copy men's wear, but they took their inspiration from the "harems" of eastern countries. Elizabeth Smith Miller created an outfit that consisted of a short skirt with TURKISH pantaloons underneath. Her outfit was promoted in Amelia Bloomer's magazine, The Lily. Women all over the country began wearing the costume. In 1903 Alice Morse Earle wrote:
"With the constant...newspaper jesting which we daily hear and read, that women are striving to capture that article of dress, now held to be so distinctly masculine, it is somewhat amusing to be told by careful students that trousers were first assumed for general wear, not by men, but by women. ...In fact, trousers had been worn by both men and women of ancient MEDIA around the 4th century B.C." (Published in the Arena, Aug. 1894)
Henry Finck, wrote in The Independent, in 1907:
"Today the Eskimo women are by no means the only ones who wear the bifurcated garment. Feminine trousers survive in many conservative Oriental countries--in Persia, Turkey, China, India, Algiers, Tunis..."
What is considered masculine and feminine in clothing styles is not dictated in the Bible by God but is a matter of CULTURE, which varies with historical era and nationality. If men could wear men's skirts in Biblical times women can wear women's pants in our day and culture.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JJM
Senior Veteran
- Apr 4, 2004
- 1,940
- 54
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Thank you for the wealth of information. I do want to say though that at no point did I mean to imply that pants were a type of clothing which was so inherently masculine that under no circumstances should they ever be worn by women. Rather I was making an assessment of a very practical kind with our specific culture ie Western European North American. It is a major methodological flaw to assume that just because something is not inherently immoral that it cannot be made immoral by circumstance social or otherwise when based on broader moral premise. For example in our culture the end of the table is a seat of honour. Does the bible really dictate where this seat should be in a culture or even perhaps if it should have one? No, but seeing as ours does if I were to, say, go our to eat with my grandfather and his friends and sit at the end of the table, I would be taking something which was not mine to take and being disrespectful to a number of people, etc. Could it just as easily be the case that in another society sitting in that exact same place would not do any of those things? yes, but I am not living in said society. So to say that God didn't dictate our social norms nor do they have to remain a certain way inherently is not automatically a good argument that they should change or be ignored. Nor really is a claim that they have immoral origins. One could say the same thing of hot cross buns and calling the third day of the week Tuesday.
I think that you and I do differ very much on the issues of gender roles more generally though, and while my opinion is based on far more than a single proof text (perhaps failed one at that), I doubt we will or need to discuss that issue further here. Though maybe another thread in another subforum.
Thank you for the interpretation regarding the Deuteronomy passage, though, it's an interesting point. Abomination is used more widely though not merely in regards to idolatry, and again I think it is a methodological failure to take the Talmud as an authoritative source for exegesis. While it probably does have within it preresurrection traditions as well as certain cultural indicators that gentiles might not get at, it is a much later work and the fact that nonchirstian Jews hundreds of years after the resurrection understood a passage in one way is not a strong indicator of its true meaning.
I think that you and I do differ very much on the issues of gender roles more generally though, and while my opinion is based on far more than a single proof text (perhaps failed one at that), I doubt we will or need to discuss that issue further here. Though maybe another thread in another subforum.
Thank you for the interpretation regarding the Deuteronomy passage, though, it's an interesting point. Abomination is used more widely though not merely in regards to idolatry, and again I think it is a methodological failure to take the Talmud as an authoritative source for exegesis. While it probably does have within it preresurrection traditions as well as certain cultural indicators that gentiles might not get at, it is a much later work and the fact that nonchirstian Jews hundreds of years after the resurrection understood a passage in one way is not a strong indicator of its true meaning.
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,900
- 9,414
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Since ancient Chinese time, besides the wearing of robes (which are not skirts), the trousers or trousers-like garments were worn by both the men and the women, even when they were toddlers. (Trousers are believed to have originated in China. It is believed that the early Europeans took the design from the East in as early as some five hundred years before Christ. The Grecians began also to adopt it. But the Romans fought it as being barbaric; (to them "only Barbarians wear trousers".) ...
It was the design, the colour and the pattern on that piece of garment that determined whether it was a man's or woman's attire.
The traditional 'pants' for Chinese women 500 years before Christ were called samfoo's.
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,900
- 9,414
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
In ancient times prior to the Chinese all people wore 'skirts' aka robes - and some wore shorter kilts. No one - not man or woman wore pants.
Although in China both genders wore pants 500 years prior to Christ. Meantime, Roman soldiers wore short skirt type clothing...known as a kilt.
Although in China both genders wore pants 500 years prior to Christ. Meantime, Roman soldiers wore short skirt type clothing...known as a kilt.
Upvote
0
I know this thread is supposed to die, but it appears to be of significant interest. I don't want to debate since I never seem to get anywhere doing it. But, I would like to add some comments concerning Deut. 22:5. Of special interest to me was the translations of geber and keliy by Hebrew language experts.
Adam Clark, commenting on Deut. 22:5 says,
"as the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probably that armour is here intended; esp as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her."
John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, sees a similar meaning:
"...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos [translator of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic] renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Miamonides [one of the greatest scholars in Diaspora Jewish history and author of the Mishneh Torah] illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus [noted Jewish historian] explains it, 'take heed, esp in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman'..." (Josephus, Book 4, 8:43)
I do know that the Chinese women wore pants. Our country's first feminists did their research, and they knew perfectly well what they were doing when they introduced women's trousers into our country's culture. Dress reformers stressed that there was nothing inherently male about trousers, and that the garment could be adapted and MADE FEMININE. There are many people to this day who believe women copied men's wear, but this is not so, neither was it their intent to blur differentiations between the sexes. Many people believe, without Biblical proof, that GOD made pants a male garment, but in light of the correct history on pants, God had nothing to do with it! If GOD did it, why did He only do so in Europe? The concept is CULTURAL.
Well, yes, I do believe in women's rights. I believe equality between the sexes is a Biblical principle. Paul affirms this very precept in letting us know that IN GOD there is no social, religious, or sexual barriers. The same equality that now exists between the Jew and the Gentile, masters and slaves, exists between male and female. Gal. 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Adam Clark, commenting on Deut. 22:5 says,
"as the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probably that armour is here intended; esp as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her."
John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, sees a similar meaning:
"...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos [translator of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic] renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Miamonides [one of the greatest scholars in Diaspora Jewish history and author of the Mishneh Torah] illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus [noted Jewish historian] explains it, 'take heed, esp in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman'..." (Josephus, Book 4, 8:43)
I do know that the Chinese women wore pants. Our country's first feminists did their research, and they knew perfectly well what they were doing when they introduced women's trousers into our country's culture. Dress reformers stressed that there was nothing inherently male about trousers, and that the garment could be adapted and MADE FEMININE. There are many people to this day who believe women copied men's wear, but this is not so, neither was it their intent to blur differentiations between the sexes. Many people believe, without Biblical proof, that GOD made pants a male garment, but in light of the correct history on pants, God had nothing to do with it! If GOD did it, why did He only do so in Europe? The concept is CULTURAL.
Well, yes, I do believe in women's rights. I believe equality between the sexes is a Biblical principle. Paul affirms this very precept in letting us know that IN GOD there is no social, religious, or sexual barriers. The same equality that now exists between the Jew and the Gentile, masters and slaves, exists between male and female. Gal. 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,582
- 1,245
- 42
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
1. Apostolic Christians are never Pentecostals. Read what this forum is about - those Christians who are in valid Apostolic Succession and who are fully Catholic and Apostolic in their faith. The Pentecostal group called "Apostolic" is not Apostolic at all.
2. So much for humility.
3. Not all priests are old.
No True Scotsman logical fallacy and therefore invalid, null, and void.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
gods prophetess
prophetess cherrie
well the bible does say we arent suppose to dress pertaining to a man but god dont look at your clothes i dont believe and surely he isnt going to send any one to hell for wearing pants thats nonsence but the apostolic church has rules or a paticular dress code they go by or something like that at least it did when i was going there
Upvote
0
Yes, they have a dress code that is stated in their "articles of faith" under their "bylaws", which are almost exactly word-for-word identical to the "bylaws" of the Pilgrim Holiness Church (I believe it is the New York Pilgrim Holiness I was comparing them with). The Holiness Movement preceded the Pentecostal Movement, and the Pentecostals simply blended the views of the Holiness Movement on clothing and women's adornment into the Pentecostal Church.
Upvote
0
WisdomTree
Philosopher
- Feb 2, 2012
- 4,016
- 170
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Willie T
St. Petersburg Vineyard
It's a strange, rather uptight group, to say the least.
My wife and I were in Wisconsin at a pizza place. We struck up a conversation with a very pleasant waitress in her early 20's. As is almost always the case with us, the conversation drifted to God.
She told us where she attended church. It was an Apostolic church.
Having no church home up there, we thought we would drop in since she had been so friendly.
My wife was wearing pants, and this immediately got all sorts of stares and whisperings started.
Then we spotted the waitress. What a staggering difference. She was an attractive girl with a very engaging personality......... outside this place. In there, she was 180 degrees, the opposite.
She had scrubbed off any sign of makeup. Her hair was combed out straight and long. She wore some frumpy-looking light blue frock that looked like it should have been her grandmother's, and she was totally embarrassed that we even said "Hello" to her. It was all over her.
We felt so very sorry for her.
Other than some of the typical hand-shaking some of the men did, that place exuded such an air of depression! And it felt just "oppressive" to be there. Friendliness and joy (and smiles) are so commonplace in our denomination that this was a complete shock to us. I've seldom seen so many people in one place so unhappy-looking.
We endured the rest of the service, but felt like we had just left a prison behind as we drove away.
I doubt we will ever even slow down as we pass one of those sad little churches in the future.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 3, 2007
- 38,441
- 1,566
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Politics
- US-Others
Mod Hat
I am closing this thread. It is in the wrong forum. Apostolic for the purpose of this forum refers to those churches that claim an Apostolic Succession (i.e., Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Old Catholic, etc).
I am closing this thread. It is in the wrong forum. Apostolic for the purpose of this forum refers to those churches that claim an Apostolic Succession (i.e., Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Old Catholic, etc).
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
